@MilremR and Marduk Technologies have announced a so-called autonomous counter-UAS system to provide mobile defence against loitering munitions and ISTAR unmanned aircraft 1/
Base platform is Milrem's THeMIS, which is becoming rather popular and being developed into an increasingly vast range of roles across combat, logistics and recce roles. 2/
The CUAS element is the Marduk Shark. This uses optical sensors to identify 'suspicious' flying objects at up to 5km, track and classify, then allow engagement via unspecified soft kill effectors. Hard kill via the addiiton of a directed energy weapon is suggested as an option 3/
The broad proposal is that most existing CUAS is static for base defence, but the biggest threat is against frontline forces on the move in contested areas. A mobile, small sized and autonomous capability would threfore keep pace and provide persistent automated protection 4/
The broad strokes are a fair propsal, the US is bringing IM-SHORAD online to fill the mobile VSHORAD/CUAS gap, and a similar weakness particualrly against UAS threats exists in most countries. end/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Only a day on from IR release to the first big land news – reports via @FTusa284 yesterday that Rheinmetall confirmed Challenger 2 LEP awarded, official details TBC but 148 tanks looks good
A thread on whaqt LEP is, largely taken from my feature on it last month for @JanesINTEL
A Pocket History: LEP, like all UK programmes, has a lengthy backstory but in the contemporary space emerged in 2013 as a pure obsolescence management project, replacing equipment that was no longer manufactured or supported and extending functional life without capability lift
With this modest scope, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued two GBP23 million (USD31.23 million) assessment phase contracts in December 2016 to BAE Systems and Rheinmetall Landsysteme for the development of digital prototypes.
NP Aerospace has re-engineered 12 Ridgback & Mastiff platforms for £7m under an Urgent Capability Requirement (UCR) in Mali, Africa, under the Protected Mobility Engineering & Technical Support (PMETS) contract.
Just look at that ground clearance contrasted with regular Mastiff!
Mods include independent suspension (nice clear view here) incorporating ride height control, along with upgraded driveline, steering and braking systems, CTIS and increased diameter tyres.
Just look at that ground clearance contrasted with regular Mastiff!
Whilst only a handful of vehicles, what a cracking story of UK industry providing very responsive big capability lift to existing assets at low cost (bearing in mind includes initial R&D) and very short time - first wave delivered in just over 80 working days and already deployed
Following up on my bar armour thread (bit.ly/3h8nZIV), a shortish primer on explosive Reactive armour (ERA). Other reactive armours (NxRA, NERA, SLERA, Electric) to follow another day. No exciting tropes to quash like bar armour, but perhaps some useful nuance to offer.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Discovered by Manfred Held in early 70s, ERA is simple and elegant. In basic form, a pair of steel plates sandwich a layer of high explosive. This sandwich is typically housed in a mild steel box to protect against damage and provide standoff from the vehicle hull as appropriate
APS are a step change capability in the world of protection, offering high probability defence against ATGM and RPG threats. However, reliable defence against kinetic energy APFSDS long rod penetrators remains challenging. A thread on why #miltwitter#tanktwitter
A successful APS defeat is the result of a sequence of key events – detection, tracking, intercept. Each of these is uniquely challenging when facing an APFSDS threat compared with an ATGM or RPG.
Detection of the APFSDS launch against the host platform is straightforward - optical sensors can detect the substantial infrared and thermal flare from a tank gun firing, and due to APFSDS being direct fire line of sight weapon it will always be in view of the defended platform
A few tweets recently had people raise usual objections around the point of #Boxer’s modular ‘pod’ design, with separate mission and drive modules, so I thought an educational journey on some of what this approach brings to the table that other vehicles don’t might be interesting
(𝟭) 𝗨𝗽𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀: Users should be continuously enhancing their kit through life to maintain capability. Some might be full platform upgrades (MLU type stuff) but most are smaller component level or variant specific. Maybe a new transmission, or a new set of IFV sights
So when that upgrade comes along, you normally end up expensively (rime + money) requalifying a staggering number of often notionally irrelevant components and systems because of their adjacency in the vehicle.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) was an attempt to do something truly remarkable and failed horribly. But always a cracker to revisit and look at what was almost achieved when someone left the USMC unattended and they dared to dream #miltwitter#tanktwitter#usmc#EFV
EFV has a long and confused history under several earlier guises including the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) but in essence from the 1970s had been seeking to find a modern high speed replacement for the venerable AAV-7A1 family of amphibious assault vehicles
The original requirements were, in honesty, just mad. 3 crew & 17(!) dismounts, 30mm stabilised turret, water speed of >25kts and a range of 400km (though notional mission was 46km swim over the horizon). On land, peer mobility to an M1A1 and 550 km range with high survivability